I have thought of a good
method of approaching this, imagine a couple of scenarios:

Scenario A.

1. create professional
army, starting off with the remnants of DPA armed forces.
2. Economic development

3. Integrate Afghanistan into
international political and economic system.

4. Foster national
leadership.

5. collect weapons.

Scenario B

1. Arm and fund militia with
history of human rights abuse and atrocities to fight dissent by labelling it
the Taliban. it was only this year that the US recognised Taliban as a
political group and conceded to a political instead of military solution.

2. AID, AID and AID which only
delivers assistance to very few and leaves out the majority to fend for
themselves. Treating the symptom of poverty while ignoring the fragile state
which is the real cause.

3. No significant trade treaty
and no long term strategic partnership; relationship at its low of all time
with neighbours.

4. Warlords, drug lords and
criminals were promoted by giving them a share in ruling the country.

you guessed it right, it was
the second that unfolded.

sure the lack of Afghan
leadership had its devastating impact and of course the dysfunctions of Afghan
culture rendered it unable to take advantage of international presence and
certainly the lack of Afghan human capital and skills was not conducive to the
occasional efforts of US at state building. but if you are studying the
role of the US as the most significant player in Afghanistan then you need to
look at its policies, conduct and practices. This is escaping people today and
it is significant because we need to recognise the responsibility of the US in
what is happening in Afghanistan today. we also need to understand the
underpinning reasons for the choices organisations and politicians make and the
assumptions they had made.

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

David Cameron unveiled new
restrictions on non-EU migration coming to the UK last week. It includes restricting
work visas to skill shortages and specialists’ jobs, higher visa fees and
increased salary threshold for the visa to be granted.

As a tier 1 visa holder I don’t
believe these measures address the real problem. The current system restricts
civil liberties; under the visa mandate professional, social and family life of
migrants are regulated in a utilitarian manner. The system determines what the
skilled migrant should be doing, when and how the business should be managed;
the Home Office and the Police monitor professional and personal life
respectively.

The system envisions only an
economic role for skilled migrants, which is incidentally also viewed as
criteria for civic participation and a desirable virtue for natives. but
despite meeting the definition of community invested citizenry, skilled
migrants are not considered part of the society as such limiting their civic
rights including political and economic rights.

Changing the immigration system
for new migrants does not address the current situation. People who are
invested in the UK need to be integrated into the society. The current system
imposes an identity on migrants defining them in terms other than members of
the community. The immigration system is creating and feeding stereotypes; in
the long term such policies serve xenophobia and racism.